Thanks for the feedback. Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us. I read what you wrote as:

"By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make."

I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.

Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).

The article is here:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of view.

The manifesto is on the website.

I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite.

Thanks for the feedback. Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us. I read what you wrote as:

"By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make."

Then I presume you will not support Bitcoin XT?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins? No? Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months? Continue to cry wolf? Self harm? Or admit being wrong?

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

Thanks for the feedback. Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us. I read what you wrote as:

"By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make."

Then I presume you will not support Bitcoin XT?

I support bigger blocks. If by showing support for XT I can help that process, then yes, I support it. If I can help achieve larger blocks by supporting a BIP that proposes to move the block size limit out of the consensus layer, then I support that too.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

[...]

So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way.

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.

We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.

Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins? No? Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months? Continue to cry wolf? Self harm? Or admit being wrong?

MP is the great visionary who sold forward 5,000 ETH for 1 BTC.

In the unlikely event they have enough honour to put their money where their mouth is, the 1Mber will go broke because there are less smart than they think they are, and it will be funny to watch.

I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.

this is true.

between now and when this whole block size issue is resolved...there will be a ton of volatility.

I would have thought the exact opposite - nobody wants to move until things are clearer. Gently sideways....

Bitcoin has been very stable true. But since Blockstream proposed to break Bitcoin (original dialogue suggested it could be considered a scaling solutions although denied when it was suggested that, that may be a motive for resisting block size increases) the price has been declining (be it stable). That's good news in my it reflects coins are in responsible hands.

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins? No? Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months? Continue to cry wolf? Self harm? Or admit being wrong?

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

I cannot confirm how valid the piece is, but non-tekkies ought to at least have an option of reading commentary like this which is in more-or-less plain English.

Note that Hearn himself wrote in the email to the mailing list that this is not supposed to be neutral. So you have to see it as one side of the discussion (i. e., his opinion).

I actually don't hear many good arguments as to why the block size should not increase and why a select few have decided to remain static for as long as possible in a supposedly ground breaking and growing technology.

Is there a way to get the mod situation on /r/Bitcoin fixed?If not, is there a way that any mod action could be stored for reference somewhere, so that there is at least a visible trail of what happened?

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?